JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

(i) That the impugned rejection order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure A-9) and impugned final seniority list circulated on 15.09.2018 (Annexure A-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the name of the applicant may kindly be reflected at serial No. 29 in the final seniority list of Patwari of District Solan, H.P. and accordingly, the name of the applicant may kindly be considered for promotion to the next higher post.

2. The bare minimal facts as are necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner qualified the written test and thereafter viva voice for training of the post of Patwari and ultimately selected for Patwari training vide office order dated 07.08.2006 and name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 2 in the list of the candidates. The petitioner thereafter completed the Patwari training and was offered appointment vide order dated 06.01.2009 on contract basis.

3. Later on, his services came to be regularized w.e.f. 03.06.2015. Respondent No. 2 circulated tentative seniority list of Patwari upto 31.12.2016, wherein name of the petitioner was reflected at Serial No. 68 and whereas the names of the private respondents No. 3 to 9 were reflected at Serial No. 72 to 78.

4. The tentative seniority list was subsequently made final and thereafter final seniority list was circulated on 15.09.2018. However, in the final seniority list so circulated, the respondents No. 3 to 9 were shown senior to the petitioner by reflecting their names at Serial No. 29 to 36, whereas the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 37.

5. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation with the official-respondents seeking rectification of the mistake, but to no avail, hence, this petition.

6. The private respondents even though served have not chosen to appear before this Court and ex parte proceedings were ordered to be conducted against them vide order dated 20.12.2023.

7. As regards the official-respondents No. 1 and 2, they filed reply wherein the factual matrix have not been disputed. The only defence taken by the respondents-State is that the final seniority list was drawn and prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15(6) of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Patwari Mohal notified vide Notification No. Rev-A(A)3-1/2007, dated 10.08.2009, which clearly provides that seniority was to determine on the basis of the Patwari Examination and practical training and according to the marks obtained by the petitioner, as compared to respondents No. 3 to 9, he has rightly been placed at Serial No. 37.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as also the private respondents were recruited against the post of Patwari prior to the promulgation of the Rules notified on 10.08.2009 (for short the 'Rules').

9. It is also not in dispute that the Recruitment & Promotion Rules which were in vogue at the time when both the contesting parties were initially appointed for training as Patwari candidates, then the Patwaris were governed by the Himachal Pradesh Revenue Department (Mohal Class-III Non Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1992.

10. Now, the moot question is whether the respondents could have resorted to amended Rule 15 as notified on 10.08.2009, for determination of seniority of Patwari.

11. However, before answering the same it shall be apt to reproduce Rules 15(A) and 15(B) of the 1992 Rules, which read as under:-

“ 15(A) Selection for training of Patwari candidate:­

(1) Selection for training to Patwari from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges in HP. shall be made on the basis of written test and Viva­ Voce test, the standard/syllabus etc. of which shall be prescribed by the F.C. (Revenue).

(2) The maximum number of persons to, be selected by each